Foxfyre wrote:WHO gives the U.S. pretty much a bum rap on its health care, but WHO is an arm of the U.N. that gives the U.S. pretty much a bum rap on everything.
Oh my God, did you actually ever even
look at the WHO data? I mean, come on - I even slipped you a tip on how to use those exact WHO data to actually make your case, and everything!
You didn't even look, did you. As in, whooo, WHO, a UN organisation, must be bogus, why bother -- I'll just assert whatever I feel like asserting -- why bother looking up actual data. After all, I claimed some stuff about Danish health care without [nimh is guessing] knowing scrap-all about what it's actually like, too.
Well, since Fox cant seem to be bothered I'll just put my advocate-for-the-devil suit on, myself, and point y'all to one of them evil UN stats here:
WHO Estimates of Health Personnel
You will notice that the US has both more physicians and more nurses per capita than the UK, Canada, or the Netherlands.
Germany, France and Denmark have more physicians per inhabitant than the US does, but fewer nurses.
All in all, not a bad score for the States there.
Of course - <pulling himself out of his advocate suit> - if the US actually has more doctors and nurses and all that, but still cant seem to get the American health indicators up to France's, the UK's or Canada's numbers, then I would argue that apparently, those resources are uneffectively distributed. Look up Belarus and Uzbekistan and you'll see they have even more physicians and nurses - and those dont seem to be all too effective. Having physicians is great - but its the effect they have on national health that actually says something about the effectiveness of the system.
Back to the case of America, I can imagine what the problem is, too. If many doctors work for expensive, luxury-care private companies rather than for widely affordable, public or collective insurance-covered services, then most of those who need medical care most (the poor, workers in high-risk jobs, etc) will actually not be able to afford their help ... If many of the available doctors provide services that only a rich substratum of society can afford, their contribution to national health quickly becomes less.
For example - hypothetically speaking - if you have 100 doctors but 50 of them work for the 30% richest inhabitants who can afford their services, and the remaining 70% of the population has to rely on the remaining 50 doctors, then the average citizen's access to a doctor's services will be worse than if you have just 90 doctors who can be afforded by all. (Yes, I calculated that out ;-)).